Sorry, Sharron Angle. If you were planning a foray back into politics, it looks like your ship has already left the dock.

After the movement’s resounding defeat in 2012, some Tea Party activists are brushing themselves off and taking a moment to re-evaluate why they lost. In Nevada, those conservatives are considering moves to bring more people over to their side. One way to do that? Stop focusing so rigidly on restricting abortion.

At last week’s meeting, tea party Republicans seemed relieved at the thought of dumping abortion as an election issue.

“As candidates we need to stay away from abortion,” said Victoria Seaman, who lost a GOP primary in an Assembly race this year. “This is settled law. I’m against abortion, but this is my personal view.”

Phil Regeski, another Republican who lost an Assembly race in November, said his 23-year-old daughter came to him two days after the election and said, “Republicans aren’t going to get votes until they stop telling people what to do.”

She was talking about women’s rights, including to choose abortion, Regeski said.

It’s a move that definitely makes sense in Nevada, where the most radical of the far right have been pushed back in elections. Even in 2010, when a wave of Republican voters turned seats GOP left and right, Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle was unable to unseat Democratic Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (R-NV), in part because of her vociferous anti-choice positions and other views on women’s issues. Republican Sen. Dean Heller managed to hold off a challenge by Shelley Berkley, but won with only a little over 12,000 votes of nearly 900,000 votes cast.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/03/nevada-tea-partiers-say-they-are-done-with-abortion-talk/feed/1Sexism in the Midterms: Politicians Win, Women Losehttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/11/07/thank-sexism-democrats-republicans-women-dont/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thank-sexism-democrats-republicans-women-dont
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/11/07/thank-sexism-democrats-republicans-women-dont/#commentsSun, 07 Nov 2010 17:01:59 +0000Sexism was a successful strategy in this election - for male Democrats and Republicans. The only group for which it didn't work so well was women.

]]>“If Harry Reid had a crazy man to run against, I think he’d be retired today.”

So says Steve Cobble, co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America, on GRITtv with Laura Flanders this week. He’s talking about the fact that sexism played an unusual role in Tuesday’s election results. Tuesday’s results were not the result of a desperate plea for change from Republicans voters but, in part, a reminder that the sexist way we treat female candidates – regardless of party – and the way female voters are treated, affected the outcome as well (even if it was, in the instance above, for Democratic success).

Sexism seemed certainly to play a role – both overt sexism in the way candidates were treated and portrayed; and more latent sexism in the apathy the Democratic party displayed in not making women’s concerns more central to campaigns. It may have effected the female voter turn-out for Democrats this time around.

As Dalia Sussman reported on the New York Times live-blog on election night:

“Democrats have come to rely on support among women to counter Republicans’ support among men. But according to exit polls so far, women nationally are evenly dividing their vote between the Democratic candidate for U.S. House and the Republican candidate. In 2006, women voted for Democratic House candidates by 12 points over Republicans.” [emphasis mine]

The Center for American Women and Politics notes that gender gaps were still evident in most U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, where exit polls were conducted; and that women were more likely than men to support the Democratic candidate, in those races where gender gaps occurred. It means that the women’s vote was key to support for Democratic candidates – in races from Colorado (where Democrat MIchael Bennett won his race against Republican Ken Buck) to Pennsylvania (where Democrat Joe Sestak lost to Republican Pat Toomey, GOP/Tea Party candidate). It also signals that if more women had turned out for the Democrats, in those races where Democrats lost, they could have won. And in those races where Democrats did win, they likely have women to thank.

Amanda Marcotte argues that women are not a “monolithic” voting bloc and that while it’s true that single women including single mothers, and women of color were crucial in bringing Obama to victory in 2008, these are groups whose votes are traditionally suppressed during midterm elections. The “enthusiasm” is not as present during midterm elections. As well, she says, you need to look at the difference between married and non-married women; married women tend to vote for more conservative candidates, while single women are more left-leaning. Did the single women stay home? But in a time of economic distress, when women are increasingly primary or co-bread winners in the famiy, when so much is at stake depending upon Republican or Democratic leadership, why didn’t Democrats’ messages reach all women?

The Women’s Media Center says that media misogyny definitely plays a role. Their Name it. Change it. Campaign tracked sexism on the campaign trail, this election season. The WMC notes that “One of the biggest barriers to elective democracy is the way women candidates are portrayed in the press.” Was the sexism just too off-putting?

Cobble says the misogyny inherent in portrayals of Nancy Pelosi, this country’s highest-ranking woman to ever hold elective office, as a “witch,” and the fear stoked in many Americans from Tea Party slogans like “Take back our country” played into the sexism which worked against Democrats. Ultimately, the mostly male, mostly white, mostly religious right Tea Party vote won out, putting Pelosi in her place from their perspective.

Dana Goldstein, writing about the scapegoating of Pelosi, in the Washington Post writes,

The attacks were vicious. A Republican National Committee campaign, “Fire Pelosi,” made careful, mocking use of her official title, “Madam Speaker.” When she criticized Gen. Stanley McChrystal for one of his many intemperate public comments about the administration’s Afghanistan strategy, ignoring chain of command, the Republican National Campaign Committee spokesperson said, “Taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place”—barefoot and in the kitchen, presumably, far away from important matters of war and peace.

But the sexism didn’t only work against the Democrats. It could have worked for them as well. For instance, this “Year of the GOP Woman,” – two GOP women, in particular. Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, both losers for U.S. Senate seats on Tuesday, were portrayed as loony, crazy, and over-the-top (which they were) by traditional media outlets. Their male counterparts, on the other hand, were largely deemed as extreme yet acceptable (Pat Toomey, Rand Paul). Cobble says that O’Donnell and Angle were “mocked far beyond their equally crazy male counterparts” – a sentiment with which I agree. While Toomey’s and Paul’s antics and far right positions were covered, O’Donnell and Angle were both made out to be far more bizarre. Even many Republicans kept their distance – while retaining support for men like Ken “I don’t believe a rape victim should bring charges against her confessed rapist” Buck.

When Laura Flanders asks Cobble if he’s saying that “Sexism works for the Democrats?” he quickly notes, “Well, I think sexism works against women.” It’s a startling moment when one realizes the irony and ultimately the trade-off women in the United States are still forced to make. Yes, we managed to “fend off” anti-choice, extreme candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle – both of whom would have worked with their male colleagues to block abortion access, gay rights’ measures, pass anti-immigrant measures, and more. However, it was sexism, in part, which allowed this to happen. Brain hurt yet? Mine does. In fact, my heart does too.

The truth is, says Steve, the Democratic party is a party based on women’s votes yet it is not a party for women, just yet. It’s leadership, for the most part, is made up of a majority of men. If the Democrats don’t start doing a better job at fighting sexism (in its own ranks as well as outside the party) and prioritizing women’s issues as critical to the success of all, the party won’t be successful at all, says Cobble.

The Center for American Progress, in a report (PDF) released on Thursday, Novermber 4th, about the election results is clear,

It should be obvious to all progressives that an electorate that looks like the one from 2010 is disastrous to their long-term goals. They need to take stronger steps to reignite the historic coalitions that fueled the 2006 and 2008 elections, particularly among women, young people, African Americans, and Latinos.

And in case one needs a reminder, this will likely be the first time in over 30 years that the number of women in Congress does not increase. The Washington Postreports that of the more than 100 newly elected legislators, 97 are White men, 12 are women.

This election day does not have to be a “mandate” for Democrats to move to the middle. It could be seen as a mandate for Democrats to understand how important women, as leaders in the party and voters for the party, are to its ability to grow.

]]>There’s been a lot of talk of voter shenanigans already for this election, mostly involving voter suppression at polling places. But Nevada Republican senate candidate Sharron Angle in now claiming even the voting machines are on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s side.

Angle, interviewing on Fox News’ Sean Hannity show, states that among the other challenges that she’s been facing in the campaign, she’s learned that there are voting machines pre-programmed to mark off Sen. Reid’s name on the ballot.

Sharron Angle, it maybe as of tomorrow night Senator-elect Angle, you are glad this moment has finally arrived?

SENATE CANDIDATE SHARRON ANGLE, R-NEV.: Well, of course, Sean, it is always an anxious moment the day of the election, but I want to welcome you first to my home and say thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk once more to Nevada voters about getting out that vote and the clear choice they have between me and Senator Reid.

HANNITY: Let’s first go to these charges of voter fraud that continue to pour in here. What is going on out there? What about free food offered for votes?

ANGLE: Well, we found several irregularities in the voting process and early voting as you know started on the 16th of October so we’ve been almost two weeks into voting.

What we found are certain things that have just been very disconcerting. Some of the voting machines have been pre-marked for Harry Reid. So you had to unmark that slot to be able to vote for me.

Some of the ballots were marked in one way ended up on the written ballot in a different way. Then of course, as you’re reporting those things where — they busload folks into the polls and give them food and gift cards to K-Mart, those kinds of things.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/11/02/angle-some-voting-machines-have-been-premarked-harry-reid-video/feed/0Mainstreaming Extremism: More GOP Candidates More Extreme than Everhttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/10/26/mainstreaming-extremism-more-candidates-more-extreme-ever/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mainstreaming-extremism-more-candidates-more-extreme-ever
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/10/26/mainstreaming-extremism-more-candidates-more-extreme-ever/#commentsTue, 26 Oct 2010 17:00:00 +0000The 2010 crop of GOP candidates is a group with more extreme stances on reproductive rights issues than we've seen in a long time.

]]>The 2010 crop of GOP candidates is a group with more extreme stances on reproductive rights issues than we’ve seen in a long time. Five of these candidates have confirmed they favor forcing a woman to give birth to the offspring of her rapist, should she become pregnant as the result of rape. The idea that the government should not even provide an exception for women to choose abortion when pregnancy is the result of rape or incest used to be an extremely fringe position. Being anti-choice is standard for GOP candidates as the party continues to rid itself of social moderates, but five candidates confirming they are against these exceptions seems to be a trend toward mainstreaming the extreme.

Here is a roundup of the most extreme anti-choice GOP candidates up for election to Congress next Tuesday.

Sharron Angle (R) – Candidate for Senate in Nevada

Running against incumbent Sen. Harry Reid (D), Sharron Angle, backed by the Tea Party, won her primary race against the GOP establishment candidate.

Angle opposes abortion access even in cases of rape or incest, or when the pregnancy poses a threat to a woman’s health. She’s even gone so far as to say that, essentially, women who become pregnant from a rape should “make lemonade out of lemons” – because it’s God’s plan.

Believes clergymen should have the right to support or disapprove of candidates from the pulpit, something that’s banned by the federal government and punished by revoking tax exempt status.

Supports school prayer and “religious speech” in public schools.

Finally, Angle recently attempted to (embarrassingly and offensively) defend her strong anti-immigrant position to a group of young Hispanic students, telling them that some of them “looked Asian” and that the people they saw in her anti-immigration commercials, by a border fence, were not necessarily Latino – that they could have been coming from our country’s northern border.

Angle is endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony List (anti-choice) and the National Right to Life Committee.

Sen. Reid has a mixed record on abortion but a strong record when it comes to supporting women’s health and rights in general. He’s supported UNFPA funding, the Paycheck Fairness Act, equity in insurance coverage for contraception, and ensuring emergency contraception is available to sexual assault victims in emergency rooms.

Buck has dodged a hard-line position on abortion during the campaign season switching between an extreme anti-choice position, even in cases of rape or incest, and a “softer” stance where he says he wouldn’t introduce a ban on abortion, though he’d support one.

According to the Washington Post, referring to his position on reproductive rights, he has said he “doesn’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly the life of the mother.” (Huh? We all know how well we women can “fake” our own death).

Ken Buck initially threw his support behind the Personhood Amendment in Colorado (Amendment 62), only to retract his support soon after saying, “This isn’t how I looked at the personhood amendment. I’m not in favor of banning common forms of birth control.”

But, most recently, Buck made a truly horrific turn for the worse when he refused to prosecute a rape case in his state, despite a confession from the attacker. He called it a case of “buyer’s remorse” and blamed the victim in the attack.

O’Donnell is famous for her anti-masturbation stance (not really a public policy stance but entertaining). O’Donnell is extremely anti-choiceeven in cases of rape or incest. She opposes even abstinence-only education because she feels the entire subject should not be spoken of.

She is also strongly opposed to gay rights, including same sex marriage. Her former Outreach Director at SALT (the organization she founded, Savior Alliance for Lifting the Truth) came out about his sexuality, after struggling for years and finally attempting to speak with O’Donnell about it. He struggled as they preached a strong anti-gay message through SALT around the country. She unceremoniously dumped him after he revealed he was gay – and they haven’t spoken since.

Of course there’s also her infamous “dabbling in witchcraft” quote and she is well known for her embarrassing debate performance where she couldn’t answer a question about recent Supreme Court case decisions she’s objected to – because she couldn’t name a single case.

The Susan B. Anthony List attempted a voter education campaign to reach out to Latino voters in the state to advocate for Fiorina but, says Emily’s List, “Somehow we doubt this effort, which will include a bus tour and online ads, will actually tell the real story of Carly Fiorina, who was fired from HP after a disastrous tenure (but still with a $21 million golden parachute!); who happily shipped American jobs overseas and laid off thousands of workers; and who supports letting people on the no-fly list purchase guns. This all adds up to a candidate who would not advocate on behalf of California’s families, women, or economy.”

The Los Angeles Times endorsed Boxer over Fiorina because “on too many issues she reflects the doctrinaire conservatism that is ascendant in the Republican Party. By contrast, Boxer has been a voice — if sometimes a strident one — for values promoted by this editorial page: individual rights, equality, environmental protection and constructive engagement by the federal government with national economic problems, including the crisis in healthcare.”

Back in June of this year, the Florida legislature, led by rabidly anti-choice House Speaker Rubio, passed an anti-choice bill forcing women to pay for an ultrasound prior to an abortion (unless they could prove they were pregnant as the result of rape). The bill also would have prohibited women who received government subsidies through the yet to be created state health exchanges from purchasing private insurance coverage of abortion (ie with their own money!). Governor Charlie Crist vetoed the bill and Marco Rubio promptly pulled out the false message perpetuated during this campaign season by anti-choice organizations that “Governor Crist’s veto…clears the way for taxpayer funded abortion.” Despite the St. Petersburg’s Times’ PolitiFact conclusively ruling Rubio’s statement wholly false, Rubio has continued to make the claim.

Rubio is endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee.

Rubio has consistently attacked Crist because Crist takes a moderate view on reproductive rights issues. He vetoed the ultrasound bill because he thought it would place an undue burden on women’s access to care. He supports maintaining Roe v. Wade as well. Crist was quoted on abortion legislation as saying that, “Personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary.”

As Robin Marty has written, Rubio is closely aligned with the Palin Tea Partiers. He’s got a solid lead, ahead of both Crist and Democrat Meeks.

Joe Miller states his unequivocal anti-choice stance in his platform: “I am unequivocally pro-life and life must be protected from the moment of conception to the time of natural death.”

The anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List, which has endorsed Miller, is running commercials now targeting Miller’s primary foe, Murkowski, on her reproductive rights stance. In advertising which uses similar statements found to be false in other states, SBA List is paying for ads in Alaska which say that Joe Miller supports rescinding “taxpayer funded abortion” in federal health care reform, despite the fact that the health care reform law does not include any measure which allows taxpayer funded abortion.

Miller opposes a woman’s right to choose in nearly all cases, believing that an abortion should be legal only when a woman’s life is endangered. He does not support exceptions for rape or incest and is a staunch supporter of parental consent laws.

Sestak is one of the pro-choice candidates who will be the target of commercials, airing in Pennsylvania, by the anti-choice group The Campaign for Working Families.

Jodi Jacobson, writing about Sestak earlier this year, after his victory over Sen. Arlen Specter, said that if Sestak wins it could be a “net gain for women, families, and the rights of LGBT, African American and Latino populations, because he would be replacing a senator known for being mercurial especially on issues of women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights and sexual and reproductive justice issues.”

Dino Rossi is firmly anti-choice, but, for a far-right conservative he’s been tight-lipped about his position (until now). In two previous (and failed) campaigns for governor of Washington State, Rossi claimed reproductive rights and women’s health issues were not at the core of what he needed to discuss with voters. However, both his record as state senator and his comments about women’s health access make clear what his public policy positions would be if he were to take office.

Although Rossi was deemed not anti-choice enough, compared to Tea Party backed, Republican candidate Clint Didier, his Republican challenger for the nomination in Washington State, Rossi said on a Seattle news station last week that women should only “maybe” be able to access abortion care in cases of rape or incest.

Perhaps most urgently for both Washington State residents and Americans in need of health care coverage around the country, Rossi is against the recently passed health care reform law and Governor Gregoire is sure that, if elected, Rossi would do all in his power to block reform for Americans around the country. Washington State is facing extremely difficult cuts to family planning and maternity care services (in addition to cuts to a myriad of health care services) because of a constitutional mandate for a balanced budget and budget shortfalls.

Despite Rossi being considered – shockingly – not anti-choice enough earlier on in the race, the Susan B. Anthony List endorsed him recently.

Senator Patty Murray has been a staunch reproductive rights and health supporter. She led the fight, along with then Senator Hillary Clinton, to push the FDA to finally approve over-the-counter access to emergency contraception, she’s been a strong advocate for health care reform, called a “champion” for women’s health access by NARAL Pro-Choice America, she’s worked to repeal the abortion ban for military women, she’s fought to expand the Violence Against Women Act and advocates for women’s health and rights in Congress every chance she gets.

Emily’s List has been fighting long and hard for Murray’s re-election.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/10/26/mainstreaming-extremism-more-candidates-more-extreme-ever/feed/13Extremist Candidates Move Towards Total Elimination of Abortionhttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/09/23/extremist-candidates-move-towards-total-elimination-abortion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=extremist-candidates-move-towards-total-elimination-abortion
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/09/23/extremist-candidates-move-towards-total-elimination-abortion/#commentsThu, 23 Sep 2010 11:49:06 +0000Will the voting public decide that the new "pro-life without discrimination" candidates have gone too far in stripping women of their reproductive rights?

As Huffington Post reports, it’s a new breed of Republican candidate: Pro-Life Without Discrimination, and its been ushered in by Sarah Palin.

RNC for Life has endorsed 63 House candidates who are “pro-life without discrimination” and heading into the general election. Edmondson pointed to Bill Flores (TX-17), Stephen Broden (TX-30), Rocky Raczkowski (MI-9) and Sandy Adams (FL-24) as especially exciting candidates to watch. Incumbents endorsed by RNC for Life include Michele Bachmann (MN-6), Jean Schmidt (OH-2) and Duncan Hunter (CA-52).

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has prominently backed and helped launch some of these conservative candidates this election cycle, so it’s perhaps not surprising that this position on abortion is one she helped elevate. In 2006, Palin said she opposes abortion in all instances except when a mother’s life is at risk. “I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society,” she wrote in response to an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, “we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.”

New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino is fighting pressure as well, from a coalition of choice leaders in the state. Via CBS6 Albany:

“New York is an overwhelmingly pro-choice state and Carl Paladino’s victory in the Republican Primary is deeply concerning for the women of New York,” reads the open letter, signed by various Planned Parenthood leaders and CEOs, state Senators, state Assembly members and other activists. “During his interview it became clear that Mr. Paladino is one of the most anti-woman candidates for governor – either Democrat or Republican – that the state has seen in a generation.”

NARAL’s Nancy Keenan points out the obvious problems that extreme anti-choice candidates will face in wooing their own core voters who believe the role of government should be as limited as possible. From the Associated Press:

“I think these anti-choice candidates are going to trip over their own hypocrisy in the next few weeks,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “They talk about no government intrusion in people’s lives, yet they’re wanting to interfere with women’s very private medical decisions.”

Candidates have six weeks to convince voters that they should vote for a politician who wants to strip away the reproductive rights of all women in any situation. Is that a position Americans are willing to buy?

“Right now, we say in a traditional home one parent stays home with the children and the other provides the financial support for that family. That is the acceptable and right thing to do. If we begin to expand that, not only do we dilute the resources that are available, we begin to dilute things like health care, retirement, all the things offered to families that help them be a family.”

Sounds like she doesn’t think womenfolk should be out there taking jobs away from men. Not so! Her campaign manager explains that she was just hating on gays.

Angle, in the interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, was talking about her opposition to same-sex marriage and Nevada’s law giving domestic partners many of the same rights as married couples, arguing it would be a financial drain on the state.

So, um, gay people make too much money to be married because maybe both of them work outside the home? Or some other argument? Color me confused, Sharron.

“Rick Snyder supports stem cell research — he’s made that clear,” Suski said. “(Snyder) will not take any PAC or special interest money and isn’t seeking endorsement.”

Mini-Roundup: In “keep your dirty slutty money away from our clean, wholesome taxpayer money” news, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) have introduced a bill that would forbid federal healthcare subsidies from going to healthcare plans that allow people to pay their own money – with a separate check – for abortion coverage. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced an identical bill in the House in April.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/08/06/roundup-sharron-angle-keeps-talking/feed/8Common Ground on Abortion? Views from Under the Bushttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/07/23/view-under-search-common-ground-abortion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=view-under-search-common-ground-abortion
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/07/23/view-under-search-common-ground-abortion/#commentsFri, 23 Jul 2010 13:00:00 +0000Can common ground be found with people like Sharron Angle? Reproductive rights experts answer these questions and explain why the ground is erroding beneath us in the abortion debate.

A large group of women of all ages, and a handful or two of men, watched and participated with applause, boos and even some tears as Sarah Audelo of Advocates for Youth, Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and women’s right blogging star Digby discussed the history “finding common ground” on abortion, the betrayal of our current leadership on reproductive rights, and what the future is looking like for women who need access to full reproductive healthcare.

Michelman, who was with NARAL for two decades, responded with fury to recent developments to eliminate abortion coverage altogether from the high-risk insurance pool. “How are we going to protect our fundamental rights if we allow our friends, our so-called friends to undo those rights? This week the administration took aim at the most vulnerable of Americans. Excuse me! This is from OUR friends?”

She had just as strong of words for the continuing attempt to find some sort of common ground when it comes to women’s reproductive rights.

“This craven mission for common ground, for bipartisanship, you compromise your own values,” stated Michelman. “In the 80’s we issued a challenge to the anti-choice movement – if you oppose abortion, you should be advocates for birth control, sex ed and better resources for women who choose to continue their pregnancies. The problem was, the two sides start with very different value systems. We were about what was ensuring the best for women. We started in that place. The other side starts in another place. They are troubled by sex and religious morals. Common ground couldn’t be established because we couldn’t even agree on values. The only value they had is that abortion is wrong. Women get thrown under the bus so we can find common ground with catholic bishops who destroyed healthcare. Common ground has been used to set us back, not move us forward.”

Digby, of the blog Hullabaloo, which focuses on women’s rights and reproductive choice, was just as bothered by the administration’s preemptive caving on women’s healthcare.

“We ended up with the Nelson amendment instead of the slightly less-bad Stupak amendment,” Digby said, explaining the rational behind originally forcing women to purchase their own additional abortion coverage or pay for abortions separately. “It’s like we are telling the right, ‘We won’t let your good Christian money touch our slutty, tainted money.’”

So who is to blame for the receding of abortion access and reproductive rights? Sadly, according to Michelman, the blame lies at the feet of our own “progressive” allies. “ We took it off the table. We’ve had decades now knowing that the other side’s intent is to stop women from having control over their reproductive lives, to control women, period. They figure we have nowhere else to go.”

“What are we going to do,” Michelman joked. “Go to the Republicans?”

One reason that abortion rights have eroded even faster under the current administration is its knee-jerk reaction to controversy, especially faux controversy engineered by the right-wing. Michelman drew a parallel between the White House’s immediate firing of Shirley Sherrod over the manufactured racism charges brought about by the Andrew Breitbart edited videos to its capitulation on federal funding for abortion in the high-risk insurance pools.

“The Right lie was ‘The administration is paying for abortions with federal money!’ and the White House has a panic attack. ‘No we aren’t!’” she said. After that, there was no coverage for women, regardless of the dangerous effects pregnancy could have on the heath and lives.

“[The administration] has taken abortion and demonized it even more,” pointed out Sarah Audelo, Policy Director for Advocates for Youth. “Abortion is common ground. One in three women have had an abortion.”

For each step forward we have taken for reproductive health since 2008, we’ve had to take a loss as well. “We got sex ed, but then we got abstinence only education,” she said. “We got pregnancy funds to help women have their babies, and [the right] gets upset because Planned Parenthood might somehow get money out of it.”

“If you don’t want abortions, I’m going to have to have birth control covered,” Audelo argued.

“No,” responded Michelman. “You have to be a nun.”

Discussion eventually turned to the idea that the anti-choice movement’s true goal is “to end all abortions at any stage of pregnancy for every woman at any time. The end,” according to Michelman. And that has now started simply by denying it to women who are poor and sick.

“It’s written in stone that poor women will never be granted the right to have healthcare that allows pregnancy termination. It’s over. We lost it,” Michelman declared. “We are going to have a Roe v. Wade legal moment with poor women before we can ever get it back.”

It didn’t have to be that was, the panel explained. Early in the Clinton administration, there was the chance to pass a reproductive choice amendment that would have codified Roe v. Wade into federal law, and made it impossible for states to pass legislation that chipped away at the ruling. “We destroyed our own possibilities,” Michelman said. “Some of us decided that we needed a three tier approach. It would be the legal right, but not the funding, and minors’ rights would happen on a state by state basis. We had everybody lined up and ready to go, but because it wasn’t all three pieces at once, some of the groups pulled away and some of the senators left.”

Once Democrats lost control of the House in 1994, any chance at passing such an amendment was over.

“There are times when you got to go when you have a chance,” said Michelman. “Not a compromise. It would have stripped the states of the right to deny access to abortion and birth control.”

Neville agreed. “If we had pushed for [a reproductive choice amendment] now, it wouldn’t have succeeded, but when the dust settled we would have been in a very different place right now,” he argued, as we would have been advocating from a point of strength rather than giving up women’s reproductive rights before we even started the healthcare negotiations.

Instead, today we have more restrictions, more waiting periods, more hurdles and many fewer clinics, putting reproductive health less accessible than it has been in decades. “It is ridiculous that my mother had easier access to abortion than I do right now,” said Audelo.

So how do we both keep our reproductive rights from eroding even farther and, hopefully, restore some of them as time progresses? For one thing, we have to stop the silence when it comes to talking about abortions and abortion rights. “The pro-choice message is not getting to the hill, and the pro-life movement is talking every day,” Audelo noted. “We have to do this as a movement – you have to come out of the pro-choice closet.”

In the meantime, when it comes to abortion rights, is common ground a lost cause? Perhaps Digby puts it best.